Support NeoGAF

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Look at it another way. Is an American regulator going to go after an American company, that has purchased an American company, in order to give American consumers the associated products at a significantly lower cost of entry in order to protect…..

A Japanese company.

Eh? Sony is a global brand whose products and services american consumers also use . It's not going to be about protecting a japanese company lol

 

[Ogbert]

Eh? Sony is a global brand whose products and services american consumers also use . It's not going to be about protecting a japanese company lol

You’re right.

And now a lot more of those American consumers will switch to using the predominantly American product instead.

 

[TheAmazingSpiderMan]

The Bungie acquisition helps their case.

How does one acquisition of 1 studio (Bungie) with 1 IP (Destiny) to their name compare to acquiring 2 massive PUBLISHERS with god knows how many IPs??? How does this help Microsoft's case?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You’re right.

And now a lot more of those American consumers will switch to using the predominantly American product instead.

So now anti-trust is about nationalism

Okaaaaay lmao

 

[Ogbert]

How does one acquisition of 1 studio (Bungie) with 1 IP (Destiny) to their name compare to acquiring 2 massive publishers with god knows how many IPs??? How does this help Microsoft's case?

Because it demonstrates that Sony is more than capable of competing and within the space of a few weeks has succeeded in acquiring an FPS, with nearly a million daily players.

 

[bitbydeath]

 

[Topher]

Because it demonstrates that Sony is more than capable of competing and within the space of a few weeks has succeeded in acquiring an FPS, with nearly a million daily players.

Somehow I don't think Destiny versus Call of Duty is on the agenda at the FTC.

 

[Ogbert]

So now anti-trust is about nationalism

Okaaaaay lmao

Broadly speaking, yes.

Certainly in terms of how domestic regulators enforce it.

 

[Menzies]

How does one acquisition of 1 studio (Bungie) with 1 IP (Destiny) to their name compare to acquiring 2 massive PUBLISHERS with god knows how many IPs??? How does this help Microsoft's case?

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander?

That even the market leader is making moves to increase their content for service delivery?

 

[Captain Toad]

Don't we already have this thread several times over?

 

[TheAmazingSpiderMan]

Because it demonstrates that Sony is more than capable of competing and within the space of a few weeks has succeeded in acquiring an FPS, with nearly a million daily players.

Are we now going to pretend to not use Microsoft’s market cap price and sonys market price all of a sudden? All week all I’ve seen and heard is “Sony can’t compete if it becomes a bidding war”

 

[Hitchyhero]

Was just about to post this.

I think you guys should watch Hoeg Law, he's a lawyer who makes this a bit easier to understand. He said he thinks the deal will probably end up going through, but he thinks the final deal will look completely different compared to what the initial deal looked like when the acquisition was announced.

Different how exactly?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Broadly speaking, yes.

You're suggesting they'll fuck over consumers in favour of nationalism

Come on man lmao

 

[Ogbert]

Are we now going to pretend to not use Microsoft’s market cap price and sonys market price all of a sudden? All week all I’ve seen and heard is “Sony can’t compete if it becomes a bidding war”

Sorry, I don’t quite understand your point.

You’re right that MS is obviously far wealthier. The point isn’t that they now own more IPs. It’s whether or not the ownership of those IPs stops Sony competing with them. There is nothing to stop Sony, who are already in a dominant position, from churning out their own games. Which they will obviously do.

MS just paid a lot of money to increase their market share.

 

[Hendrick's]

How does one acquisition of 1 studio (Bungie) with 1 IP (Destiny) to their name compare to acquiring 2 massive PUBLISHERS with god knows how many IPs??? How does this help Microsoft's case?

Sony is the biggest player in gaming and they are on a buying spree as well. You don't think they will be looking at the other major players and how they are on an acquisition spree? How does this not help Microsoft's case?

 

[Menzies]

You're suggesting they'll fuck over consumers in favour of nationalism

Come on man lmao

Are consumers not currently "fucked" with PlayStation dominance?

Does this not increase competition?

 

[bitbydeath]

Don't we already have this thread several times over?

I didn’t see it, surprised it wasn’t on the front page.

 

[Ogbert]

You're suggesting they'll fuck over consumers in favour of nationalism

Come on man lmao

But how are consumers being fucked over? MS is going to put all these games on a subscription where three months run less than the price of a Sony game.

I’m really not trying to be cute. They’re simply spending lots and lots of money to develop a compelling product.

This *is* competition.

 

[3liteDragon]

Different how exactly?

That idk, his words not mine. You can watch his coverage so far on all this.

 

[kingfey]

I never looked down on dlc, quote me on that, I challenge you lol.

So in your world, once a DLC releases, base game is worthless.

That tells me everything I need to know about you.

Who in their mind will read books, when they just want to play games. Gamers are gamers, because they play video games. Only hardcore people of the series buy books of that game.

And not every game has a digital complete edition, again what's you point? You can't nitpick examples that fit your argument and ignore all the counters to it.

Fair point

You buy bundles, this is different than "complete editions". And yes it's cheaper, no one said Physical is cheaper? Argument was, when you get banned, Physical Owners can still play their games, you cannot.

bundles are complete edition. Its why its called complete, because it included dlc and base game.

Physical games can get scratches on their disc, which makes them unable to play their games. You can lose the disc, or sell it.

And not every publisher does complete editions either so you have to separately buy the dlcs too.

Most publishers do. Most games these days have complete edition. Its either goty, or some other shenanigans. Its been that way for a long time.

Because "PC master race" is such a shit take, I don't even want to be part of a "pc master race". Looking at the development towards GaaS, gaming in whole is going down the shit. PC and Console alike.

Gaming have been going downhill for a long time. Once MTX started, every free content, become paid content. from call of duty maps, to halo contents, to unlockable characters.
GAAS is the new blame force now. Gamers always look for things to blame. If people didnt buy those mtx, dlc stuff, we wouldnt be in this position at all.

You know, there is this thing called "choice". You seem to not understand it's concept since the whole point of this conversation is "There are Pros and Cons when going Digital vs Physical" yet you somehow felt attacked when I pointed out that there are benefits for going physical on console lol. What are you getting so defensive about? Where did a physical game release hurt you that you feel the need to try and fight it so much?

Digital is a choice too.
There is risk for physical games. from scratches, to losing, to space issues. Then there is the disc issues, which only works on certain devices. Digital has hacking issues, and ban issues. Both have risks.
Its only you here, who is making a big deal about it. we wouldnt have this conversation, if you werent angry about digital games.

No they don't? There are many games that don't work because of old requirements that modern PCs are just "to modern" for. Or games weren't made with future proofing and simply either refuse to outright launch or run like crap etc.
Also, with VR rising, you already have segregated hardware tied libraries. Got a Valve Index and want to play Resident Evil 4 VR? Guess you can ask Zuckerberg, but you'll have to buy a META VR Headset to play that game. Whoops!

What the hell is this crap? What does that have to do with my steam library? I can play my old steam games normally. There is fix for everything. If you dont know about that, there is no problem. Just a simple google can fix your issues.
Its much better than having to be confined on 1 single console. You will need that console, to run your games. and without that console, your games are useless. That 1 big advantage PC has over consoles.

Which is wrong. A quick google search would have told you that the first Microtransactions date back to Double Dragon 3 in 1990, a arcade game where you could buy upgrades in a shop in exchange for coins you'd toss into the machine. On Windows it most likely was MapleStory which came out in 2003. Must hurt to not even get that right huh?

That is arcade. We are talking consoles here. Oblivion made that possible. Which started the who notion of paying real money on the console.

Arcades were pay 2 play in the 1st place. And it didnt come to consoles, until oblivion made that move.

Point is.
Physical has the benefit of permanence. You can pop in 99,9% of the games you own into your console now, or in a 100 years. Your console can be hardware banned or you can live in a cottage with no internet. You can play that game.
You can even resell it if you don't feel like playing it anymore. You can lend it. You can't do that on digital, only if you create a new account for every game you own, then you could sell or lend it obviously. Steam sharing could be seen as lending, but you cannot both be online so it's just a semi workaround either.
Digital has the benefit of being cheaper and widely available.

You cant. Each physical game is confined by a specific console. Once that console ends, you are stuck with that console. Ps4>Ps5, Xone>Xsx/s changed that. Which is why you are comfortable with your discs. If Ps5/xsx/s didnt support old gen games, your physical games would have been useless.

No one claims otherwise. But you also have to include the drawbacks, which are:
Physical, if you break your disc, well you're out of luck and need to get a new one. And it's more expensive.
Digital on the other hand, if your account gets banned, everything is gone. You cannot resell games, only if as said above you got a account for every game. You can only resell your whole account and that's even against TOS of all Storefronts. You need a internet connection to download those games in most cases. On console, you had the incident of the internal battery dying and MS/Sony having to issue patches so that once the service goes offline those games can be played without authentication. Also, once your service goes dark, you cannot even claim your games anymore. If Steam or any other Storefront were to go out of business, so does your games library.

That is the price for these things. Physical or digital, they have their own benefits and cons. To me, digital is much more worth it.

You only get banned, if you do stupid shit. Only few instances were unfair bans. So your likelihood of getting banned depends on your behavior.

 

[Chiggs]

That idk, his words not mine. You can watch his coverage so far of all this.

I've watched all three of these and I must have missed that part. Which video are you referencing, in particular?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

But how are consumers being fucked over? MS is going to put all these games on a subscription where three months run less than the price of a Sony game.

I’m really not trying to be cute. They’re simply spending lots and lots of money to develop a compelling product.

This *is* competition.

Imagine a scenario where Microsoft doesn't stop with ActBliz, but goes for Ubisoft, EA, and TskeTwo next.

Forcing everyone into your ecosystem and slowly killing off your competitor isn't competition.

 

[3liteDragon]

I've watched all three of these and I must have missed that part. Which video are you referencing, in particular?

I think it's the second one.

 

[Topher]

Are consumers not currently "fucked" with PlayStation dominance?

Does this not increase competition?

No, consumers are not "fucked" because of PlayStation. That's a weird take. Either way, that isn't the point he was making at all. This notion that the FTC is going to look at this transaction and factor in the nation of origin of a company not involved in the transaction is beyond bizarre.

 

[ZehDon]

This doesn’t mean what a lot of you are hoping for or think it’s going to be. They’re going to pass this deal and Microsoft will continue to purchase until they get to a place they can put a new game out every month in gamepass. This seems to be their plan.

Phil has stated the goal is one major first party release each quarter. That's four a year. They'll have, I believe, 32 first party studios once the Activision Blizzard deal closes. Even if only half the teams are heading up major titles, they'll have more than enough to meet their goal. I don't seem them buying too many more developers, and certainly not another publisher.

 

[Ogbert]

Imagine a scenario where Microsoft doesn't stop with ActBliz, but goes for Ubisoft, EA, and TskeTwo next.

Forcing everyone into your ecosystem and slowly killing off your competitor isn't competition.

Yes, that’s a valid point.

You could certainly argue that there is a point where MS could purchase so many of the IPs that they have created not only a monopoly, but a barrier to entry. So Sony simply couldn’t compete any more - MS would own all the experienced professionals in the market.

But we are not at that point.

For the record, I own a PS5. I’m actually pleased that MS are no longer pointless.

 

[Ogbert]

No, consumers are not "fucked" because of PlayStation. That's a weird take. Either way, that isn't the point he was making at all. This notion that the FTC is going to look at this transaction and factor in the nation of origin of a company not involved in the transaction is beyond bizarre.

Why’s it bizarre?

It’s the principle competitor. You’re shocked at the idea an American regulator might go light on an American company when it’s pumping Japanese competition? I mean, they’re really getting tough with Amazon right. Maybe when Bezos buys the moon they’ll fine him an extra 3 million pesos.

 

[Menzies]

Imagine a scenario where Microsoft doesn't stop with ActBliz, but goes for Ubisoft, EA, and TskeTwo next.

Forcing everyone into your ecosystem and slowly killing off your competitor isn't competition.

Imagine a scenario where Sony has been leading an industry for decades. That they are so dominant they outsell their closest rival 2:1.

That such industry dominance means they get to bargain cheaply for exclusive content and timed releases and lock out competition.

Cuts both ways for me. Nothing seems fair. Neither is extrapolating one thing leads to the next.

 

[EDMIX]

Geoff is more trustworthy than Jeff grubby, but still take it with a pinch of salt.

True. I think this is more likely as Sony started that deal with Bungie 6 months ago, so Zenimax likely influenced when that was going to happen as MS being a company close to them, Sony may have expected MS to buy them next, so not saying that is the whole deal, but likely part of why they bought them, WHEN they bought them.

So I can only assume that Sony is looking to fill out gaps caused by Zenimax purchase and are still in a deal based on that purchase, as in to get a WRPG ala Fallout Elder Scrolls, Shooters like Doom and RAGE etc So i wouldn't really be that shocked if some deals are in the works that are near done, for all we know they are saving that news for State Of Plays or something lol

I think if they really want to make a power move EA or T2 are their safest bets. Both of them have cool IPs but also Sony could use GTA as leverage to keep COD on PlayStation.

^ likely.

I like how we have reach fucking nuclear proliferation levels in this lol


I'd say Destiny is more likely being used to keep COD on PS, but GTA can't hurt lol I think MS knows that owning Destiny and having it on all platforms vs Call Of Duty on limited platforms runs the risk of them being over taken by that IP, so they are forced to consider keeping it on all platforms to remain competitive in sales. Who knows.

 

[Markio128]

Sony and Nintendo will finally merge to bring out the Nintendo Playstation console next gen.

An absolute pipe dream (pun intended), but I would be a very happy Markio if this happened. Nintendo IPs on Sony hardware?

 

[Chiggs]

I think it's the second one.

Yeah, so it's that one, but I have to disagree with "vastly different."

The guy literally says: "It's more likely than not that this deal is going through, so if you take away one thing from this video--it's that."

He then goes on to say that there's basically a 100% chance that the FTC will ask for some concessions with Game Pass or Cloud gaming...and that there is always a chance that someone could scuttle the deal with a burdensome requirement, but that's always a risk.

A big bunch of nothing is honestly my take. He's just covering all scenarios.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Imagine a scenario where Sony has been leading an industry for decades. That they are so dominant they outsell their closest rival 2:1.

That such industry dominance means they get to bargain cheaply for exclusive content and timed releases and lock out competition.

Cuts both ways for me. Nothing seems fair. Neither is extrapolating one thing leads to the next.

Sony being a dominant player doesn't stop you from playing those games somewhere else

 

[digoutyoursoul]

I just want some good games, is that to much to ask for?

Well said

 

[Punished Miku]

The main con of publishers consolidating is it reduces the number of ways for developers to get funding. Ultimately Microsoft now controls what used to 3 separate ways to get a game funded.

Less options means devs have less leverage and it can result in fewer games being made. It gives each publisher more power to say no and force devs to change their games to get deals.

I guess that is true. Good point.

 

[manfestival]

kinda nice having all of these megatons lately. Reminds me of simpler times of the ps2/3 versus the xbox/360

 

[Topher]

Why’s it bizarre?

It’s the principle competitor. You’re shocked at the idea an American regulator might go light on an American company when it’s pumping Japanese competition? I mean, they’re really getting tough with Amazon right. Maybe when Bezos buys the moon they’ll fine him an extra 3 million pesos.

These are multinational corporations. They all have a global presence. SIE has its headquarters in the US and they pay corporate taxes to the US just like Microsoft does. Yes, it is ridiculous to suggest the FTC would collude with Microsoft to give it an advantage over Sony simply because its origin is in Japan. That's essentially what you are suggesting. If you want to believe that then fine, but yeah, I find it absurd and more than likely illegal.

 

[Menzies]

Sony being a dominant player doesn't stop you from playing those games somewhere else

Can we agree that the regulators would take a holistic view of the current and historical market dynamics and players? That it's not just big tech making a big acquisition without considering the current health of the industry and the respective players positions?

But it could be argued Sony has leveraged its' dominance for marketing deals, exclusive content and timed releases - no? Is that healthy?

 

[Chiggs]

These are multinational corporations. They all have a global presence. SIE has its headquarters in the US and they pay corporate taxes to the US just like Microsoft does. Yes, it is ridiculous to suggest the FTC would collude with Microsoft to give it an advantage over Sony simply because its origin is in Japan. That's essentially what you are suggesting. If you want to believe that then fine, but yeah, I find it absurd and more than likely illegal.

Conceptually, it's not that far-fetched. Though I agree with your analysis, especially since Japan is not a "rival" per se, like China.

Now, as to the historical precedence of something like that happening: Look at how US companies like AT&T and Verizon dropped Huaweii like a rock. And keep in mind that both AT&T and Verizon have massive government contracts, especially AT&T with FirstNet.

Companies and Presidential Administrations can play reindeer games, too.

 

[TheGodfather07]

If they were to acquire any studios at all, it would be out of Square Enix, Capcom, and Fromsoftware. I’d personally put good money on Square Enix; they have a good history with Sony. Final Fantasy and Tomb Raider both secured their fame on the original PlayStation.

they all kinda make sense. resident evil has history with PS and street fighter 5 was a ps4 exclusive. fromsoftware have made exclusives and apparently they could have another one coming for PS5. they all have worked closely with sony in the past and obviously have a strong partnership

 

[TheAmazingSpiderMan]

Sorry, I don’t quite understand your point.

You’re right that MS is obviously far wealthier. The point isn’t that they now own more IPs. It’s whether or not the ownership of those IPs stops Sony competing with them. There is nothing to stop Sony, who are already in a dominant position, from churning out their own games. Which they will obviously do.

MS just paid a lot of money to increase their market share.

My main point is to do with the acquisitions going forward, I‘m sure we all know this won’t be Microsoft’s last acquisition this year, and where the market is heading it’s going to become a bidding war to snap up content quickly for games services going forward. With inflation rising these publishers/studios in a years time or longer will go up in value and whoever purchases them will be paying more than a pretty penny for them, which is why I believe Microsoft isn’t done just yet, they and Sony would rather try grab what they can before it becomes a sellers market which it kinda is showing to be, this is where Microsoft with its advantage will stop Sony being able to compete.

 

[Wooxsvan]

could just be deals for content or exclusive time periods

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Can we agree that the regulators would take a holistic view of the current and historical market dynamics and players? That it's not just big tech making a big acquisition without considering the current health of the industry and the respective players positions?

But it could be argued Sony has leveraged its' dominance for marketing deals, exclusive content and timed releases - no? Is that healthy?

Of course. I've said in this thread and other threads that I think this will go through in the end. My argument from the very beginning has just been to explain why it's not as black and white as people think, and why regulators can very well see an issue with this. This is incredibley complex and anyone saying this won't go through because of x or this will go through because of y are wrong.

They both engage in exclusive deals, marketing deals and timed releases to compete against each other. Same with Nintendo really. That's something regulators would just view as industry standard imo

 

[.Pennywise]

I think it's time to focus discussion on this neverending ride in a thread since we're being flooded with this kind of topics. Since MS opened the pandora's box with Bethesda's acquisition and blew everything up with ActiBlizz purchase, we're now seeing the gaming industry taken by storm.

This thread is to share news about the matter, share your opinion on acquisitions/mergers, predict new possible company purchases, talk rumors, discuss possible new games and game development at acquired companies, platforms, etc.

These are the latest (and biggest) gaming acquisitions that happened in the last years, from previous gen up to today's topic creation date Feb. 1st, 2022.

​

Acquisitions with deal value of at least USD$1 billion​

​

Acquisitions with deal value of at least USD$100 million​

These are the big companies that could swallow up other companies, be them big enough to surpass the 2 billion digits in price, or more independant studios. These "Big boys" are in a run to secure their own spot in the gaming industry and take their portion from the pie. VR, streaming, subscriptions, new platforms, new ways of playing, you name it. The gaming industry has grown to be the biggest money maker in the entertainment industry (and in this forum we know nothing about pron). How the next 10 years will look depends on what these big companies want to do in this run.
In this list we only take into account companies that already showed an interest in gaming, either to keep up in the business, aswell as to enter in the game.

It's a saying of course. But for the right amount of money we know most of these are, literally, "up for grabs". These companies are the most prominent to be acquired by the "big boys". This is because these have a good amount of studios that can develope videogames and/or have a good amount of known and well stablished IPs.

Of course there are many more independant studios, and some may be harder to grab than others due to price or other nuances (American-Japanese mergers).

Like it or not, this is just the beginning. (That's the reason this thread exists, duh) Also, the people in charge of these ride are not backing nor putting the foot off the accelerator.









So, let's see how this evolves and how this thread and your predictions look down the road in a few years.​

 

[Represent.]

Yeah the great Congress debate over call of duty.


Lol jesus

Way to downplay it. Its a multi billion dollar IP and will be by far the most discussed property in all discussions becuase its super important.

Its not just Lol COD. smfh.

 

[Topher]

Conceptually, it's not that far-fetched. Though I agree with your analysis, especially since Japan is not a "rival" per se, like China.

Now, as to the historical precedence of something like that happening: Look at how US companies like AT&T and Verizon dropped Huaweii like a rock. And keep in mind that both AT&T and Verizon have massive government contracts, especially AT&T with FirstNet.

Companies and Presidential Administrations can play reindeer games, too.

But that isn't the same thing happening here at all. The idea being put forth here is Microsoft can skirt regulation simply because Sony is based in Japan. That is indeed quite far-fetched. When it comes to national security concerns we are talking about an entirely different scenario.

 

[Elder Legend]

I have a strong feeling Capcom is next.

 

[.Pennywise]

I have a strong feeling Capcom is next.

But who gets it?

 

[Chiggs]

But that isn't the same thing happening here at all. The idea being put forth here is Microsoft can skirt regulation simply because Sony is based in Japan. That is indeed quite far-fetched. When it comes to national security concerns we are talking about an entirely different scenario.

Right, except it's arguably absurd to assume that Huawei was the only "compromised" manufacturer, given just how many consumer electronic devices are assembled in China. So why the focus on only Huawei?

And then there's this:

Huawei's Meng Wanzhou flies back to China after deal with US

The row over Meng Wanzhou's detention in 2018 strained China's relations with Canada and the US.

www.bbc.com

I love the faith you have in the US Government, but if another nationalistic administration took the reigns, or if this one got fed up with China (again), well, there's no telling what kind of shenanigans we'd see.

Again, I do agree none of this happens with Sony/Japan, so just consider this a little footnote in the debate.

 

[mansoor1980]

can neogaf and resetera merge? legit question

 

[EDMIX]

damn, fucking respect OP, this is a very solid thread.

Twas a great read.

I hope you update it as those buy outs happen.